69 replies to this topic

[Tdog]

In my opinion, the ruling on the recovery of the ball was bogus. The Ref and the NFL owe us a large appology for screwing up the call. According to Rule 3, Section, 2, Article 7 of the NFL Rulebook: Player Possession- it states

"Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.

Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."

Link- http://static.nfl.co...Definitions.pdf

According to their own rules, it's the Ravens ball and Reed is awarded a fumble recovery. It's unbelieveable that the Ref who is right there gets it right, but somehow the head Ref, after contact with the "upstairs", and reviewing it, changes the call. I just wonder if we are going to follow the rulebook, or make up calls as we go along to fit our own agenda.

Edited by Tdog, 10 December 2012 - 11:21 AM.

[edreedfromtheu]

Of all calls to complain about, you seem to be complaining about a pretty obvious call to me.

He didn't have control of the ball, and he was out of bounds. The forced fumble was nice, and David Reed almost got it. But he didn't. The camera angles were clear. It wasn't one of those "well... we didn't have indisputable evidence" cases. It was clear. He didn't get the ball in bounds.

[nextgen_RavensFan]

I wanted that ball as bad as anyone but you are right, he did not have possession.

[PuRock]

In my opinion, the ruling on the recovery of the ball was bogus. The Ref and the NFL owe us a large appology for screwing up the call. According to Rule 3, Section, 2, Article 7 of the NFL Rulebook: Player Possession- it states

"Note 1: A player who goes to the ground in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball (with or without contact by an opponent) must maintain control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, whether in the field of play or the end zone. If he loses control of the ball, and the ball touches the ground before he regains control, there is no possession. If he regains control prior to the ball touching the ground, it is a catch, interception, or recovery.

Note 2: If a player goes to the ground out-of-bounds (with or without contact by an opponent) in the process of attempting to secure possession of a loose ball at the sideline, he must maintain complete and continuous control of the ball throughout the process of contacting the ground, or there is no possession.

Note 3: If a player has control of the ball, a slight movement of the ball will not be considered loss of possession. He must lose control of the ball in order to rule that there has been a loss of possession."

Link- http://static.nfl.co...Definitions.pdf

According to their own rules, it's the Ravens ball and Reed is awarded a fumble recovery. It's unbelieveable that the Ref who is right there gets it right, but somehow the head Ref, after contact with the "upstairs", and reviewing it, changes the call. I just wonder if we are going to follow the rulebook, or make up calls as we go along to fit our own agenda.

Guess everybody has a different interpretation. I read the same rule above and saw the play and think it was the right call.

[gabefergy]

They got it right.

[I AM LEGEND]

Funny how one turn of the ball is the difference between a win and a loss...I jumped and screamed at the bar "its over" ....smh

[mlg207]

I dont like the rule, just because the ball moved a tiny bit does not mean he didnt possess it. He grabbed it in bounds and never lost control of it, I think that shouldve been our ball.

If he grabbed it the same way but then it hit the ground or popped into the air a litte and not just move around in his arms like it did then, yes, it wasnt a recovery, but he had it in his arms the whole time. Like i said, I dont like the rule.

[bpytnjr58]

IMO the interception and the stripped fumble were the killers....they were moving the ball fairly well on both possesions.

[Twistidfunk]

David Reed blew it. Plain and simple.

We were better off with him not suiting up.

[T3hRaven]

David Reed blew it. Plain and simple.

We were better off with him not suiting up.

He should've been cut after single-handedly losing that Seattle game last season. He is as clumsy as he is stupid.

[H8R]

He should've been cut after single-handedly losing that Seattle game last season. He is as clumsy as he is stupid AND FRAGILE.

Had to add to that. That would have ENDED the game...but NO<><><>

[Twistidfunk]

You all speak the truth

[omar586]

they got it right, reed should of pulled ball in bounds, not slide with ball out of bounds

[nk02442]

It was a bad call (review)

Rule on the field was a recovery in bounds

Replay showed he clearly had the ball in his chest while in bounds.

Ball moved slightly after he had possestion and momentum pushed him out of bounds.

Very close call either way but no where near enough inrefutable evidence to overturn.


At any rate you guys need to give DR a break. I have been one of his biggest haters since that Seatle game, but since he has been back, hes been a man on fire. Its not like he was expecting the ball to be fumbled and knew he had to stay in bounds. He did the best he could considering the cirumstances and you guys should be happy he had the nose to atleast try and get us the possestion.

[nk02442]

David Reed blew it. Plain and simple.

We were better off with him not suiting up.

You guys Blaming Reed for the the Fumble is downright Comical.

Your right though, he should have defied the laws of physics and nature and somehow stopped his momentum from taking him out a bounds. While he's at it, he sould have fired up his magic 8 ball and known the ball was going to be fumbled at that spot at that time.

Lets not blame Defense for blown coverages, Flacco for making rookie mistakes like always, or recievers from running poor routes and dropping the ball like usual.

[1/28/01]

It was a bad call (review)

Rule on the field was a recovery in bounds

Replay showed he clearly had the ball in his chest while in bounds.

Ball moved slightly after he had possestion and momentum pushed him out of bounds.

Very close call either way but no where near enough inrefutable evidence to overturn.


At any rate you guys need to give DR a break. I have been one of his biggest haters since that Seatle game, but since he has been back, hes been a man on fire. Its not like he was expecting the ball to be fumbled and knew he had to stay in bounds. He did the best he could considering the cirumstances and you guys should be happy he had the nose to atleast try and get us the possestion.

He actually has been all over the place, flying around (agree there), but the recovery was definitely recovered out of bounds.

Go Cundiff!

[mlg207]

Ive been really impressed with Reed since hes come back, hes a pretty good special teamer. On that play he did exactly what you're coached to do, fall on it, dont try and pick it up. You cant put any blame on him there

[Mt. Crushmore]

Just for all your Reed haters, last week against the Steelers he had 2 tackles on punts for a net gain of -3 yards. Also had a tackle assist on another. Key reason the dangerous Antonio Brown was kept in check. In fact they had 9 yards on 5 attempts with a long of 6.

[GrimCoconut]

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First of all what the H? Yeah, I am not fond of David Reed. I blamed him for the Seahawks loss in 2011. He has also proven to be injury-prone. He also had that stupid suspension for flushing drugs down the toilet, too. I mean let's face it: he has done some really dumb things.

With that said, I can't blame him for anything since he returned. He has played well. He did a good job. He tried to recover the fumble. Give the man credit for actually being near the ball, recognizing the fumble and actually trying to get the ball rather than watch it go out of bounds. He tried. That's all I can ask.

People are being too hard on him.

[tctony]

I fail to see how Reed didn't have possession. How much possession does somebody need to show? The ball never left his hands.